This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Of the three petitioners above-mentioned, only Pormento sought recourse to this Court and filed a petition for certiorari, which was docketed as G.R. No. 191988, entitled "Atty. Evilio C. Pormento v. Joseph 'ERAP' Ejercito Estrada and Commission on Elections." But in a Resolution[9] dated August 31, 2010, the Court dismissed the aforementioned petition on the ground of mootness considering that former President Estrada lost his presidential bid. | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| On November 30, 2009, former President Estrada filed a Certificate of Candidacy[7] for the position of President. During that time, his candidacy earned three oppositions in the COMELEC: (1) SPA No. 09-024 (DC), a "Petition to Deny Due Course and Cancel Certificate of Candidacy" filed by Rev. Elly Velez B. Lao Pamatong, ESQ; (2) SPA No. 09-028 (DC), a petition for "Disqualification as Presidential Candidate" filed by Evilio C. Pormento (Pormento); and (3) SPA No. 09-104 (DC), a "Petition to Disqualify Estrada Ejercito, Joseph M. from Running as President due to Constitutional Disqualification and Creating Confusion to the Prejudice of Estrada, Mary Lou B" filed by Mary Lou Estrada. In separate Resolutions[8] dated January 20, 2010 by the COMELEC, Second Division, however, all three petitions were effectively dismissed on the uniform grounds that (i) the Constitutional proscription on reelection applies to a sitting president; and (ii) the pardon granted to former President Estrada by former President Arroyo restored the former's right to vote and be voted for a public office. The subsequent motions for reconsideration thereto were denied by the COMELEC En banc. | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The complete discussion of the Court in Monsanto where J. Leonen selectively lifted the inclusion for his own purposes is as follows:[95] | |||||
|
2013-12-10 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| As we have explained in Pormento v. Estrada:[42] | |||||
|
2012-03-20 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| The Court does not resolve purely academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging these are.[5] This is especially true, said the Court in Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities v. Secretary of Education,[6] where the issues "reach constitutional dimensions, for then there comes into play regard for the court's duty to avoid decision of constitutional issues unless avoidance becomes evasion." The Court's duty is to steer clear of declaring unconstitutional the acts of the Executive or the Legislative department, given the assumption that it carefully studied those acts and found them consistent with the fundamental law before taking them. "To doubt is to sustain."[7] | |||||